the latest and greatest ISO 400 colour film

[vuk_vuksanovic]

i haven't shot colour negative film for almost two years now and was

just wondering what the state of affairs was at ISO 400. the last

time out, i had some nice results with portra VC (ISO 160), but i'd

like a little more speed for something i have in mind for the weekend.

it's all going to be scanned by me and processed in photoshop, so

subtleties of colour balance aren't so much an issue as avoiding

grain, which i simply don't like when it's not B&W.

 

thanks in advance!

 

vuk.

[p_b7]

try Portra 400 UC

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Given that you liked 160VC, you might think that 400VC would be a good choice. But personally, while I like its colours and skin tones, I find its grain objectionable.</p>

 

<p>400UC, which started life as a member of the Portra family but is now part of a separate family (at least in Canada and the U.S.), is definitely worth trying. It's quite fine-grained for a 400-speed film, and it scans very well.</p>

 

<p>The usual suggestion applies: it's not a good idea to rely on a film you've never used before, if the pictures you'll be taking are important to you.</p>

[bill_tuthill]

Agreed, Ultra Color 400. The only downside is that it has very strong

red response. Do not use a KR1.5 or 812 warming filter, and watch out

for ruddy complexions. NPH is similar but with weaker red response

and more grain in warm colors.

[eric friedemann]

I've been shooting Fuji NPZ (ISO 800) at E.I. 400. But I'm going to have to try some 400 UC.

 

 

It better give decent shadow detail at 400. If the 400 UC is another 200-320 film rated at 400, I'm gonna be pissed.

[albert lui]

I haven't scanned any of the high speed color slides (E200, Provia 400F), but they might be worth considering. If they scan better than the same speed neg, it would be worth the higher price.

[constance_cook]

Eric:

 

I have used little except UC since it came out. It's great. Shoot it at 400. That's where it belongs. Be very careful with underexposure. It can muddy up with underexposure.

 

It scans beautifully.

 

Conni

[ted_marcus1]

Kodak 400UC. It's the closest thing to a one-size-fits-all solution for all your color negative needs. Vibrant but not excessive color, fine grain, scans well; low carb, trans-fat free, less filling, no animal lard or sugar added. It's called "Ultra Color 400" in North America at this moment, but I don't know what it's called elsewhere in the world (or what Kodak will rename it for North America tomorrow).

[rustys pics]

Another vote for Kodak UC 400. I've never been a Kodak zombie, but they really got this

stuff right. Also, if you go to the Kodak pro website, they will mail you a check for 10

bucks if you buy 5 rolls of UC400 or UC 100. Not a bad deal at all.

[manolis1]

The latest and greatest ISO 400 colour film is..........

 

KODAK 400 UC.

[philippartridge]

Vuk, for the work of yours I've seen posted here, the advice offered is probably your best choice, simply due to scan compatibility and rendition. For prints, you may find UC a little plastic. If so, Fuji have improved NPH lately, it scans better than before, carries less grain in scans and (of course) is very accurate, which UC is decidedly not.

[lacy_dillard]

I guess I'm the only person here who doesn't like 400UC :) I shot about four rolls of it and was very disappointed. The color was saturated, but it was even warmer than Kodak films typically run. The shadow detail was muddy, and it didn't scan well for me. I really had mess with the colors in both the scanning software and in Photoshop, and I found it more grainy than NPH. Maybe I just had a bad experience ... I still have some just sitting here because I disliked it so much. I should probably rate it as slower and try again, but I've started using Fuji NPC all the time and I love it.

[James G. Dainis]

Lacy,<BR>

Where did you have the film processed? Kodak films work better with a Noritsu processor, Fuji films work better with a Fuji Frontier processor. You wouldn't get as good results with the 400UC if it was processed on a Fuji Frontier system.

[constance_cook]

James is spot on about printing on a Noritsu. The type of Kodak paper matters, too. UC prints beautifully on Royal paper.

 

Prints from Fuji are flat and muddy with detail lacking. Underexposure can do the same thing only not as bad.

 

Conni

[bill_tuthill]

Sounds like 400VC, Lacy. Your photos on iamadot.org/photo.html

look like VC as well.

[albert lui]

-->Prints from Fuji are flat and muddy with detail lacking...

 

I disagree with the above statement and I have been pleased with the Frontier prints and scans I had done in Japan, of UC400.

[constance_cook]

Where in Japan did you get your prints made? Anywhere I've had prints made in Japan, they send Kodak film to Kodak. I still get it back by the next morning. All these places run Fuji -- of course. But they don't do Kodak on it.

 

If they did do it on Fuji, you were very lucky. All you have to do is look up other posts about UC and you will find that expereiences with Fuji and Kodak are not the best.

 

Conni

 

Conni

[albert lui]

I'm impressed by Frontier processing in Japan. It seems to be more consistent than in California. The attached UC400 image was processed by the photo service in a department store in Mito. I cannot remember the name, but its the one with the orange graphics. For minilab details, please look at the EXIF data.

[lacy_dillard]

The lab I get my film done at uses a Noritsu processor, Kodak chemicals and Kodak Royal paper. Also, I had a look back over my negatives and none of the shots up on the webpage were done with UC or VC. One is from a roll of Portra 800 (similar to VC? I haven't tried it) and everything else was with NPH. I really ought to go back and re-scan those negatives anyway .. I've learned how to better use my scanner since then and I'm sure it would make a difference in their appearance for the better. Maybe I have strange standards when judging film (though I can't imagine what they would be), but honestly I've liked the performance of Fuji better. It's possible that it's based less on scientific fact, and more on personal preference :)

[scott_eaton]

I woulnd't take that comment about Fuji seriously either. The Fuji Frontier is dialed 'hotter' in terms of saturation than the Noritsu.

 

I'd otherwise agree to keep UC 400 with Kodak processing since it gets a bit 'hot' with Frontier processing.

[bill_tuthill]

FYA, a shot from Big Sulphur Creek taken in the rain, negative scan

and Frontier print via HP S10. The Frontier print is greener than I

remember it, however two sun/shade Macbeth prints on the same roll

are nearly spot-on colorwise, so who can fathom the mysterious ways

of Fujifilm. I am satisfied with 400UC skin tones from the Frontier

down at the local Long's Drugs-- they are not too green.<div></div>

[albert lui]

Bill - Thanks for the interesting datapoint. I find the green on the Frontier print rather pleasing, but the green rocks are not so pleasing.

 

Conni - I'm aware that the big stores will send film to the film maker's processing. In 1996: Kodak, Fujifilm, Agfa, and Konica had their own counters at Yodabashi. I shot only one roll of UC400 during my trip in Japan; its possible (as you suggested) that I got lucky with the Fujifilm processing. The rest of the time, I used Venus (Superia) 400.

[eric friedemann]

We've strayed into talk of Frontiers and Noritsus. Let's make sure we are comparing apples to apples.

 

 

Frontier machines only print with lasers and are capable of printing at 300 or so d.p.i. Also, laser-to-C-print machines seem to print hotter (contrastier) than optical machines and Noritsu with MLVA (LED) print heads.

 

 

Noritsu makes two kinds of digital-compatible machines- laser-to-C-print and MLVA-(LED)-to-C-print. For volume printing, my store has a laser-to-C-print machine that is capable of keeping up with original-roll processing. Lasers simply print faster than LEDs onto C-print materials.

 

 

For direct-from-digital, printing from 120 film and making enlargements to 12x18 inches, we have a Noritsu QSS-2901 machine that uses a "Micro Light Valve Array" (teeny tiny LEDs). The 2901 is capable of printing at 400 d.p.i. and does a little better job than laser-to-C-print machines at maintaining tonal range, particularly when printing from negatives. The Achilles Heel of the 2901 is that it simply doesn't print nearly as fast as a laser-to-C-print machine, let alone an optical machine.

[eric friedemann]

Also, we use Kodak's high-end Royal paper in both our machines.

[albert lui]

Eric - thanks for the info. After the UC400 was processed in Japan, the small prints were on Fujifilm paper. According to the Photo CD file's EXIF, a Frontier machine was used, so I would guess that the prints were done on a Frontier. But I could be wrong.